>>11668, >>11674
Correlation does not equal causation
First thing you learn in stats. Many seeming associations are arbitrary.
Yes, I know Q said there are no coincidences. But some connections are far more meaningful than others--discernment is about distinguishing meaningful from trivial (or irrelevant) correlations.

One of the main reasons for timestamps has been to demonstrate there is a meaningful and relevant relationship between Q posts and POTUS tweets--espec at the beginning of Q's work, when it was hard to know whether he was for real. But that was then, this is now.

Two points:
1. We have many verifications of this relationship, both from timestamps and other evidence (AF1 pics, etc)
2. As Q once noted a while back, the time for focusing on that kind of evidence is long past (probably got the wording wrong here, sorry, but that's the gist).

Q has given us a lot to work with, and also tools and hints to work with. Respectfully, I'd suggest focusing moar on the work and less on Q proofs. Just my two cents worth, kek.

>>11684
Saw your post just after finishing this one. No, correlation does not equal causation--maybe we should tell that to MSM, which keeps reporting that 8chan (or Q) have been "linked" to this or that bad act(or). (In the case of Q, the list is literally 4 or 5 people total--the guy blocking the dam, the guy with the sword, the fake postal bomber and a couple of others). MSM also like to add in the guy who shot up Comet Pizza (as tho he's a Q follower, even tho is was a yr b4 Q started posting). (Say, what ever happened to him, anyways?)

The claim is always that bad people post on 8chan be 8chan caused them to "go bad" (become "radicalized"). Ditto for following Q. These dark claims are common that I can look in just about any anti-Q piece and find one or more examples--like most recent Q piece by the UK-Guardian, which talks about both "dam" and "pizza" guys as tho they are typical Q followers.